Source: Salford Advertiser
TAXI drivers say they will be crippled by costs after losing a landmark court case. Salford hackney cab drivers went to court to overturn the council’s decision to implement new rules across the city.
But their fight against the plans to delimit taxis failed, leaving the drivers almost £50,000 out of pocket. The drivers, backed by national union Unite, will now have to find the money to pay the legal fees.
Dave Evans, from Unite, said: “We are all devastated by the decision. “The drivers will have to club together and find the money themselves. “It’s really difficult because all we wanted was a guarantee to get people round the table again to talk about the plans.”
The drivers had sought a judicial review to overturn Salford City Council’s decision to delimit. Black cab drivers are against plans to scrap the limit on the number of hackney carriage licences issued by the council.
Instead, they want a ‘controlled increase’ of licences over the next three years. They believe the council plans will threaten the livelihoods of the 79 drivers who currently hold black cab licences.
The judge, Mr Justice Parker, in handing down his judgement, refused permission for Judicial Review proceedings and awarded costs to Salford City Council. It is understood the council’s costs amount to £16,000 and the taxi trade’s costs could exceed £50,000.
The new taxi rules, which will come into force immediately, allow for a removal of the current limits on the number of hackney cab licences the council can issue as well as other new rules which include refusing to licence any taxi which does not meet the council’s stringent emissions standards.
This potentially means all vehicles over seven years old cannot be licensed for use as a taxi. Councillor Norman Owen, who supported the taxi drivers’ fight, said: “The decision is deeply disappointing. “The taxi trade has been landed with huge legal costs, when all they really wanted was more meaningful consultation with the council.
“They have been forced down this road by the council’s unwillingness to listen and it is disappointing that Mr Justice Parker did not realise that.”
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
This sounds like a job for superdave !!!!!!
This is one our Dave mustnt have been consulted on. maybe Alan the fiddler could help? Oh no, maybe not, he would probably have the bill increased as in Stockton. Ooops.
@vulture,
I seem to remember a comment some months ago that suggested use of a trade union would provide better security for drivers having a grievance, rather than using certain independent consultants. Trades Unions will not splash out money on legal cases unless they are certain they can win. Anyone who knows of any lawyer/advisor/trade union that can guarantee success in every case should speak up now.
PS – I’m at a loss to understand the reference to myself and costs arising in Stockton.
I have read the Salford Hackney Carriage Drivers Article and £50,000.00p
divided by 79 Proprietors is equal to £632.91p a Proprietor, now this is
hardly a crippling financial debt, per Proprietor, who tried to protect
their business.
I mean in North Tyneside you have Mr Shanks who takes North Tyneside Council
to Court and then he lost the case in 2001, but did Mr Shanks cry, NO, he
instead thought I had all these drivers paying me for over 2 years at the
time a set amount of money, and that set amount of money was larger than he
had to pay in costs, so really Mr Shanks was a winner in 2001.
Now from January 4th I understand was the d-day for all Newcastle Private
Hire Operator Licence Proprietors to no longer have any “Out of Town”
Hackney Carriages working their circuits, and I understand a willing Mr
Shanks has opened his doors to all these “out of Town” Plate Holders to pay
him the weekly rent.
Now like lost sheep there shepherd will heard and milk the sacred cow for
more money weekly until North Tyneside does the same as Newcastle, Now some
may say Northumberland County Council should have acted before now, but they
are weak and unwilling to make a decision on the Licences already out there.
I understand they did revoke some New Applications in early December 2009,
but what about the rest ?
There are 204 Hackney Carriages Licensed by North Tyneside Council, and we
live in a where there is blame there is a claim culture, so why do we not
take North Tyneside Council to Court for our loss of earning as £50,000.00p
divided by 204 Proprietors is only a bill of £245.10p a Proprietor, should
we lose, but what if we won.
I for one would like to hear what response is given on the TOO MANY TAXIS
website to this idea of £245 for unlimited damages to your business by being
prepared to sue the Council for none Enforcement and Supervision of the Act
of Parliament in relation to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, and, the
Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
Are you MEN or Mouses Proprietors ?
First of all Zorro I agree what you say about Salford £632 per driver is nothing at all, it’s just over two weeks Company Car rent at the big NT Offices!
However if you want to do that in North Tyneside, take the Council to Court, why divide it over the 204 hacks, get the the NT Private Hire involved who have been damaged by the “Best before 04/09 mob (Berwick), and the Legal cost could be as little as a price of a Kebab!!!.
Finally D-Day in Newcastle, don’t build your hopes up too much, I don’t think BLT would take on that Yaris or that MK3 Astra Hatchback would they?, it will be interesting what BLT do when they have a age limit on there Cars and a moto of “Investors in Passenger Safety” when taking on ex LA Cowboys (Lansdowne/Ace), also the Town Offices would claim “Grandfather rights”.
@Stephen Arthur, Stephen Arthur, I read with interest your kebab reference, and it made me
laugh, why you may ask would I laugh?, well simply because you once again
assume that a Private Hire Vehicle Proprietor or Driver has the right to the
“Hackney Carriage Taxi Proprietors Only” compensation claim.
You see Stephen, does a Private Hire Vehicle Proprietor or Driver hold their
own “Private Hire Operator Licence” to make the provision to accept a hiring
themselves without another Operator acting as their Agent?
The Answer clearly is Stephen, “they do not” in most cases & therefore the
204 Hackney Carriage Proprietors of North Tyneside would be very foolish to
allow any Private Hire Vehicle Proprietor or Driver to be part of there
claim for compensation, because only a Hackney Carriage Proprietor Taxi
Driver in law has a valid claim for Non-Enforcement and Supervision by the
Council employed officers in relation to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847,
and, Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
I am afraid Stephen, the case would fail in a Court of Law, if the 204
Hackney Carriage Proprietors allowed the Private Hire to again pretend to be
a “Taxi”.
The Newcastle situation, if you read the small print on any “Private Hire
Operator Licence” there is a set of terms and conditions, and one of those
states the Licence is only valid for 12 Months meaning no “Grandfather
Rights” for Private Hire under the 1976 Act,because Any reasonable Condition
can be attached to the Private Hire Industry, unlike a Hackney Carriage
Licence that is issued under the 1847 Act, without any conditions attached,
but with “Byelaws” instead about how the “Out of Town” Vehicle can trade
within its own “Licensing Borough Council Area” in relation to “Accepting a
Hiring” or being “Hailed in the street or at a rank”.
It is a Hackney Carriage Compensation Claim Only!!!!!
@Zorro, seen a berwick bandit 2day working fr 5 star so has not been stopped yet ????
Hello Zorro
First of all you have not really got 204 Hackney Carriages have you?, the reasons being that some of the Plates are owned by the big Operators, some are owned by multiple Plate holders and some are owned by these Insurance claim firms!.
These three groups probably would’nt take the Council to Court would they?, you know that.
I don’t think I am a Hack, I know some PH do, all I was saying is that a bit of unity would’nt go a miss, because like it or not we all have the same badge really, at the same cost from the same Council.
My “Grandfather Rights” comment was referring to the Berwick brigade and not the PH or you guys.
So if you think that you have all 204 Hacks behind you, good luck!
Regards
Stephen
@Stephen Arthur, I agree Stephen! and of the Hack owner drivers left you would be lucky to get 50% involved.I don’t say that lightly, it comes from experience of years of trying to get people to work together. Even this site hasn’t achieved that.
how many plate owners would it take to start a class action?…
Enough plaintiffs to make class action an efficeint way to handle the claim – A certified class action suit is one brought on behalf of a large group of people as plaintiffs who have suffered some similar harm from the same actions of the defendant or defendants.
{ 1 trackback }